Djokovic

Sampras' running FH is the one you see on the highlight reels, but there were a bunch of his contemporaries that had better or more solid FH. He had a good forehand, he did not have a GREAT forehand. If you have arguably the best serve of any GOAT candidate and such a great FH shot, then you don't have such a drop off in your clay court results.

Sampras's FH, as great as it was, wasn't even the best while he was playing. His running FH has reached mythical proportion. people don't realize he didn't hit that shot every time he was on the run,,,,,,fact is, he missed it more than he hit it.

Click to expand...

LOL, way to deflate the Pete kool-aid balloon

Also, those claiming that "Pete had the best running FH or all time" -- so what? that's a rare enough shot that you don't use that as an argument to claim he had a better FH.

Novak's FH is not as aesthetically pleasing as Pete's but certainly more effective across all surfaces. I've never seen anyone track down short-angled cross-court shots to the FH as Novak has, and return them with interest.

Sampras' forehand was a big shot, but it wasn't very versatile. If his forehands were not coming off, it's not like he could play it safe and hit penetrating rally balls. Technically he could but that wasn't going to win him a lot of points against the likes of the best baseliners.

I don't think he was particularly good at handling high balls either with his eastern grip, which is probably why he struggled on clay.

But it was such a huge shot that opponents were not comfortable hitting to it - observe how selectively Agassi would hit to that wing, especially on fast courts.

Djokovic's on the other hand is not as forceful as Sampras's was, or for that matter, Federer's. But then he doesn't need to go for as much, because he has such a great backhand, plus superb defense.

He can pretty much do anything with it when it's on, but he doesn't have Pete's sheer explosiveness. And Sampras' running forehand is legendary for a reason. There's no comparison there.

Sampras' forehand was a big shot, but it wasn't very versatile. If his forehands were not coming off, it's not like he could play it safe and hit penetrating rally balls. Technically he could but that wasn't going to win him a lot of points against the likes of the best baseliners.

I don't think he was particularly good at handling high balls either with his eastern grip, which is probably why he struggled on clay.

But it was such a huge shot that opponents were not comfortable hitting to it - observe how selectively Agassi would hit to that wing, especially on fast courts.

Djokovic's on the other hand is not as forceful as Sampras's was, or for that matter, Federer's. But then he doesn't need to go for as much, because he has such a great backhand, plus superb defense.

He can pretty much do anything with it when it's on, but he doesn't have Pete's sheer explosiveness. And Sampras' running forehand is legendary for a reason. There's no comparison there.

Click to expand...

this, you summed it up very well. I was gonna post something very similar but you hit the nail for sure. I'm so happy, when I see smart guys/gals here

back in the 90s they had more surfaces than just clay so hitting winners was actually a viable strategy as opposed to non-stop grinding until your opponent makes an error or dies on court due to massive coronary from exhaustion.

Petros had one of the best forehands of all time and a very good backhand. There’s a reason he held his ground just fine against Andrei off the ground. Andrei got into trouble countless times the second he put a ball to Petros’ forehand. When you hit a ball to Petro’s forehand and give him enough time to set up you know the point is about to end. With Djokovic it’s not like hitting to his forehand means the point is over. I’d be much more worried about hitting to Petros’ forehand than Djokovic so with that it’s obvious Petros’ had a superior forehand. Djokovic and Nadal are just lucky that the only difference in today’s clay surfaces is color.

This is ridiculous. Djokovic has a good forehand, but Federer, Nadal, Soderling, Berdych, Verdasco all have better forehands than him.

Sampras had the best forehand of his generation. He destroyed Courier and Agassi in baseline forehand to forehand exchanges throughout their career. In his generation only Becker had a forehand to match his (only 2 years older).

People say "Sampras only won because of his serve". Sampras's serve is overrated. Ivanisevic hit 50% more aces than Sampras, and Rusedski/ Philippoussis/Krajicek hit 15mph faster than him.

Watch Federer v Agassi in their 2004 and 2005 AO and USO matches, then watch Sampras v Agassi Wimbledon/Cincinnati/TMC 1999. It's uncanny. There's a reason everyone instantly began comparing Federer to Sampras. Federer and Berdych are the only players with forehand weapons as good as Sampras's.

Sampras had the best forehand of his generation. He destroyed Courier and Agassi in baseline forehand to forehand exchanges throughout their career. In his generation only Becker had a forehand to match his (only 2 years

Click to expand...

Total falsehood. Both courier and Agassi dominated Sampras from the baseline, even in fh to fh exchanges.

Total falsehood. Both courier and Agassi dominated Sampras from the baseline, even in fh to fh exchanges.

Click to expand...

No they didn't. In the 1999 Wimbledon final Sampras broke Agassi's serve for fun. Think about this, every baseline rally in the match began with a serve to Sampras's backhand, and Agassi still couldn't hold his serve with baseline rallies. That goes for every Grand slam final they played bar the AO.

And Courier???? How many majors did Sampras knock Courier out of? Courier says himself the key to that match up was Sampras getting im out wide on the backhand then slamming the ball to Courier's forehand - Courier's extreme grip meant he was terrible at hitting the ball late. He'd pop up a short ball and Sampras would slam home a forehand winner. Very like the Blake - Nadal match up come to think of it.

This is a good list. However on the passing shots, while I haven't seen Sampras's (youtbe videos show s&v, some BH DTL passing), isn't Djok better in this area - he seems to know exactly how much spin to apply and how much to go through the stroke, even when he's completely out of position (which is only when most opponents approach these days)?

"errors" defined as "didn't get ball back into play whether forced or unforced.

Click to expand...

Consider that every SINGLE baseline point was on Agassi's serve and began with a serve to Sampras's backhand and Sampras STILL won JUST under 50%!!!!!!!!! That is insane!

And that's just on Agassi's serve! Imagine if Sampras had served and stayed back??? He'd have won 95% of baseline rallies on his own serve and would have an overall baseline win % of around 80%! He DOMINATED Agassi from the baseline. He broke Agassi to love more than once. Then he did it again in Cincinnati, Los Angelos and the TMC!

Total falsehood. Both courier and Agassi dominated Sampras from the baseline, even in fh to fh exchanges.

Click to expand...

…on slow surfaces only. At Wimbledon or the US Open forget about it. There is a reason Andre and Jim were most successful at the Australian Open. Once Wimbledon, US Open and the indoor season hit, in comparison to Petros, they were better off staying at home. And that includes baseline rallies. Watch Petros dominate both Andre and Jim at the US Open from the baseline. It’s was rather disheartening because I was a big Agassi and Courier fan and found Petros boring to watch (mainly because of his lack of personality). But when I saw Andre or Jim come up against Petros in the US Open draw I knew it was going to be lights out barring a miracle.

…on slow surfaces only. At Wimbledon or the US Open forget about it. There is a reason Andre and Jim were most successful at the Australian Open. Once Wimbledon, US Open and the indoor season hit, in comparison to Petros, they were better off staying at home. And that includes baseline rallies. Watch Petros dominate both Andre and Jim at the US Open from the baseline. It’s was rather disheartening because I was a big Agassi and Courier fan and found Petros boring to watch (mainly because of his lack of personality). But when I saw Andre or Jim come up against Petros in the US Open draw I knew it was going to be lights out barring a miracle.

Click to expand...

This is partly true. Agassi definitely won most of the baseline points even at the US, but this was because of Pete. All of sudden when it was a big point Pete would concentrate harder, put more effort in and win. Back then I was a big Agassi fan. I used to be annoyed and shocked how Sampras would suddenly even start hitting great backhands on important points. The 95 US Open final probably changed tennis history.

I suppose you didn't read the above stats (one of them is from Wimbledon). But since you mentioned it, here are the following:

US Open in 1995, Agassi won 64% of the basleine exchanges,

US Open in 2001, Agassi won 65%.

Year end finals 1999, Agassi won 67%

etc

PS: If you want to be taken seriously, stop calling Sampras "Petros". It sounds stupid.

Click to expand...

Every single baseline rally in 2001 began with a serve to Sampras's backhand and Sampras STILL won BARELY under 50%!! Imagine what that % of baseline exchanges would have looked like if Sampras had stayed back????

In 1995 every single baseline exchange began with a second serve from Sampras or a serve from Agassi to SAmpras's backhand! Imagine what that % of baseline exchanges would have looked like if Sampras had stayed back???

Sampras comprehensively dominated Agassi from the baseline on fast surfaces.

Every single baseline rally in 2001 began with a serve to Sampras's backhand and Sampras STILL won BARELY under 50%!! Imagine what that % of baseline exchanges would have looked like if Sampras had stayed back????

In 1995 every single baseline exchange began with a second serve from Sampras or a serve from Agassi to SAmpras's backhand! Imagine what that % of baseline exchanges would have looked like if Sampras had stayed back???

Sampras comprehensively dominated Agassi from the baseline on fast surfaces.

Click to expand...

you make sampras look like an idiot for venturing the net more often as opposed to staying back. because, according to you, Sampras would've had more success than what he actually did if Sampras stayed back more, and you sure must know more than what he did on how to play Agassi. In other words, you claim Sampras had no clue as to what he was doing, but it somehow worked??

wtf dude.. you start with the assumption that Sampras had a better ground game (FH, for instance) than Agassi, and you're making adjustments to stats to fit your assumption. Do you have a valid explanation for Drakulie's stats? if not, please stop making stuff up to suit your agenda.

you make sampras look like an idiot for venturing the net more often as opposed to staying back. because, according to you, Sampras would've had more success than what he actually did if Sampras stayed back more, and you sure must know more than what he did on how to play Agassi. In other words, you claim Sampras had no clue as to what he was doing, but it somehow worked??

wtf dude.. you start with the assumption that Sampras had a better ground game (FH, for instance) than Agassi, and you're making adjustments to stats to fit your assumption. Do you have a valid explanation for Drakulie's stats? if not, please stop making stuff up to suit your agenda.

Click to expand...

Sampras won about 90-95% of points on his first serve on grass in about 3 shots thanks to serve and volleying. He had bad stamina and would have been an idiot to stay back and only win 75%-80% from the baseline and play long exhausting points.

But look what he was doing on Agassi's serve. You can't tell me with him winning 46% of points on Agassi's serve he would have had a problem winning from the baseline behind his own serve?

Sampras won about 90-95% of points on his first serve on grass in about 3 shots thanks to serve and volleying. He had bad stamina and would have been an idiot to stay back and only win 75%-80% from the baseline and play long exhausting points.

But look what he was doing on Agassi's serve. You can't tell me with him winning 46% of points on Agassi's serve he would have had a problem winning from the baseline behind his own serve?

Click to expand...

I can, and I will. Drak's stats are from rallies that lasted 3 shots or more, so you can make a fair assumption that who was serving was a non-issue.

I can, and I will. Drak's stats are from rallies that lasted 3 shots or more, so you can make a fair assumption that who was serving was a non-issue.

Click to expand...

Even though the serve determines who has the upper hand in a rally? Nadal and Djoker mostly hold serve when they play and their rallies are insanely long so your interpretation of that statistic doesn't work.

Even though the serve determines who has the upper hand in a rally? Nadal and Djoker mostly hold serve when they play and their rallies are insanely long so your interpretation of that statistic doesn't work.

Click to expand...

but we're not talking about Djokovic or Nadal, are we? stick to the point. And in the 1999 wimbledon final, Agassi got only 46% of his first serves in, so more than half the time he served, he was starting the point in a neutral position!

but we're not talking about Djokovic or Nadal, are we? stick to the point. And in the 1999 wimbledon final, Agassi got only 46% of his first serves in, so more than half the time he served, he was starting the point in a neutral position!

Click to expand...

Watch the match. Sampras started hitting insane returns and Agassi had to try and red line his serve and nothing worked for him. In the former pro player section there is a stat showing it was Agassi's highest ever average mph on first serve in a final.

Remember, Sampras was used to facing Becker and Ivanisevic in the final. Agassi's 115mph serves must have looked hilariously slow to him.

Djokovic-Nadal and countless other matches establish the principle that your interpretation of that stat is wrong.

Watch the match. Sampras started hitting insane returns and Agassi had to try and red line his serve and nothing worked for him. In the former pro player section there is a stat showing it was Agassi's highest ever average mph on first serve in a final.

Remember, Sampras was used to facing Becker and Ivanisevic in the final. Agassi's 115mph serves must have looked hilariously slow to him.

Djokovic-Nadal and countless other matches establish the principle that your interpretation of that stat is wrong.

Click to expand...

dude, you're all over the place. FOCUS.

So you do agree that Agassi won most of the rallies that started from a neutral position (Sampras hitting insane returns, nothing working for Agassi, living on 2nd serves, 115mph weak serves etc.)?

So you do agree that Agassi won most of the rallies that started from a neutral position (Sampras hitting insane returns, nothing working for Agassi, living on 2nd serves, 115mph weak serves etc.)?

Click to expand...

No, he was either hitting 115mph serves to Sampras's backhand or kicking the ball up high to Sampras's backhand on his second serve, which Sampras was never really able to get around and hit a forehand on in that match. So you have to admit that either Sampras's forehand or backhand was far better than you say it is.

Anyway, I'm finished posting here for today, back tomorrow. See you then.

Consider that every SINGLE baseline point was on Agassi's serve and began with a serve to Sampras's backhand and Sampras STILL won JUST under 50%!!!!!!!!! That is insane!

And that's just on Agassi's serve! Imagine if Sampras had served and stayed back??? He'd have won 95% of baseline rallies on his own serve and would have an overall baseline win % of around 80%! He DOMINATED Agassi from the baseline. He broke Agassi to love more than once. Then he did it again in Cincinnati, Los Angelos and the TMC!

I suppose you didn't read the above stats (one of them is from Wimbledon). But since you mentioned it, here are the following:

US Open in 1995, Agassi won 64% of the basleine exchanges,

US Open in 2001, Agassi won 65%.

Year end finals 1999, Agassi won 67%

etc

PS: If you want to be taken seriously, stop calling Sampras "Petros". It sounds stupid.

Click to expand...

The majority of baseline exchanges were on Andre’s serve. Basically showing his service game holds. The fact that they were that close is amazing to see how into every one of Andre’s game Pistol was. If Pistol stayed back on his serve the stats would be completely different and in Pistol’s favor

Watch the match. Sampras started hitting insane returns and Agassi had to try and red line his serve and nothing worked for him. In the former pro player section there is a stat showing it was Agassi's highest ever average mph on first serve in a final.

Remember, Sampras was used to facing Becker and Ivanisevic in the final. Agassi's 115mph serves must have looked hilariously slow to him.

Click to expand...

Actually, what is "hilarious" is the fact that not counting aces, Agassi hit more unreturned serves than Sampras (30 to 25).

Again, you are wrong.

fact is, Sampras played quick strike tennis, and was never able to dominate baseline exchanges (even when he won the match).

In stats not compiled by you, Sampras dominated the baseline against Agassi. Every rally starting with a serve to his backhand and he still wins nearly 50% of them and breaks him multiple times, often to love. The 1999 Wimbledon final and the USO QF posted by you are great examples.

From Drak's stats, it was clear that Sampras had way more errors than he had winners on his FH, so yes, his FH cannot be attacked

Click to expand...

stats don't say everything......the impact of no. of errors back then doesn't equal the impact of no. of errors today.......the game has shifted totally towards defense and consistency whereas it was more about aggression back then.......

sampras's forehand was a weapon.......a lethal one.......he could pretty much shut the point with one sledgehammer forehand by following it to the net......it could not be attacked in the sense the more you tried to drag him out wide the faster he used to hammer it back.......that leads to a few more errors as well but that's what explains what i said above about how the game was played back then.......

drakulie's 2006 breakdown of the result of points (with balls in play for more then two shots) was pretty clear and compelling showing that Sampras' effectiveness dropped waaaay off if he had to work points from the baselines and that his FH errors shot up. Now with it being Agassi on the other side of the net, you'd see similar results with most others I'd wager, but it should put things a little more in perspective. This is consistent with my feelings that people forget how dependent Sampras was on his serve to make his game work.

NOT good. you're asking a huge Pete fan here Pete sliced his backhand really low and rushed the net faster than the speed of light and knocked a volley winner to the open court. That's what he often did when a baseliner attacked his backhand.

pete's backhand had no problems on grass.......he dominated rallies at wimbledon.......used to bend his right knee and rip it down the line and cross court.......even indoors it was a very good shot for him as he could measure the stroke and deliver under controlled playing conditions (under the roof).......

his backhand had some problems on clay and high bouncing hardcourts.......